From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion Leo Van Audenhove (iMinds-SMIT- VUB) and Louis Fourie (UWC) Ten years is not a long time. But it is approximately twice as long as is customarily given for international development projects. No project within DBBS better illustrates the wisdom of a ten year establishment span than the one described in this chapter. At the start, the project focused on absolutely necessary provision of ICTs at a university which was without the means to equip itself adequately in the wake of apartheid. Over the first seven years, UWC developed rapidly, the South African environment changed, technology advanced and there was a growth in international understanding of the need to move beyond the technical to the social in beneficial expansion of the use of ICTs. In response, the project became an academic one with significant influence, not only on the University environment but on national development. This depth and rapidity of change reveal the wisdom of allowing development projects to respond accountably to developing needs, and, by implication, the impediments which straight line development thinking can place in the way of important change.
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion Information and CommunicatiOn Technologies (ICTs) and new media, in particular the Internet, have been drivers of social change for more than twenty years. They have revolutionised the storage and exchange of information and access to it with large social consequences. The term "digital divide" refers to the divide between those with access and those without access to these digital technologies. But the term must be unpacked and replaced. At first, it referred to groups within the same country. However, the concept was quickly broadened to refer to the huge imbalances between
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
I 145
different countries in access to ICTs, so that it came particularly to refer to the imbalances between North and South (Nulens et al., 2001). As such, it had major implications for economic development in the era of the global knowledge economy. Many academics and policy makers still view digital exclusion in this way (Marien and Van Audenhove, 2012). However, some scholars take a more complex view. Among them, Van Dijk (2005) defines the digital divide as marked by differences in the level of access, motivation, use and skills. Livingstone and Helsper (2007) and Pena-Lopez (2009) join him in seeing the digital divide as a continuum of possible positions between inclusion and exclusion. With the same concerns in mind, Hargittai (2003:2) suggests replacing "digital divide" with "digital inequality': a concept which emphasises the "spectrum of inequality across segments of the population depending on differences along several dimensions of technology access and use': Although his view is widely accepted, there are varying interpretations of it. Van Dijk(2006), for instance, considers digital inequality to be a broad concept related to technological, material and immaterial, social and educational aspects of inequality. The key feature of digital inequality is thus not so much access to technology, as what people are actually able to do with the technology given their overall circumstances. DiMaggio et al. (2004) show how digital exclusion results from the inability of the individuals and groups concerned to use new media to create value, and Witte and Mannion (2010) emphasise that without the skills and capabilities in using the media, people are unable to reap the benefits in everyday life, formal and informal learning and the job market. Whereas the concept of the digital divide relates predominantly to access to technology, the concept of digital exclusion sees the digital as interrelated to other forms of exclusion. It is concerned with social inequality, often arising from deeply-rooted problems in society such as "unemployment, low income, poor housing, crime, poor health and disability and family breakdown" (Notley and Foth, 2008: 11-12). This distinction has large implications for a country like South Africa. Providing individuals or specific groups with access online will not in itself end their exclusion. In this project, therefore, digital exclusion tends to refer to the mechanisms that contribute to people's inability to take advantage of ICTs. Accordingly, we encourage the conscious use of strategies and
146 I
Dynamics of Building a Better Society
policies either to overcome mechanisms of exclusion or, better still, actively to include and to empower people to realise their capabilities (Marien and Van Audenhove, 2012).
Digital Inclusion and ICT4D Towards the end of the 1990s, a new field known as ICTD or ICT4D (ICT for Development) emerged. It is based on the premise that "ICT can contribute to the improvement of socio-economic conditions in developing countries" (Avgerou, 2010:1). The whole field of what Avgerou (2010) refers to as Information Systems Innovation is systemised into a framework comprising four discourses identified along axes of innovation and transformation. These axes concern the nature of the ICT innovation process and the kind of transformation to which ICTs contribute. Progressive transformation JCT and development as socioeconomic improvements through transfer and diffusion.
Innovation by transfer and diffusion
JCT and development as socioeconomic improvements through locally-situated action.
Socially-
----------11--------- ·innovation embedded JCT does not necessarily result in development for all: The transfer and diffusion of JCT leads to uneven development.
JCT does not necessarily result in development for all: It is subject to the power dynamics of IS innovation action.
Disruptive transformation Figure 8.1
Four discourses on ICTD (Avgerou, 2010:9)
The horizontal axis conceptualises development as the transfer and diffusion of knowledge from advanced economies into developing economies, either directly as a technical process with due adaptation to the technical circumstances in the country at one end of the axis, or in ways which embed the knowledge within the social behaviour of the culture at the other end. The technical view assumes that, if the adaptation is appropriate, a
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
I 147
desirable developmental impact can or will be made. This view is closely related to the modernisation paradigm of the 1950/1960s and the digital divide debate of the 1990s and early 2000s (Nulens and Van Audenhove, 1999; Sparks, 2007). It assumes that ICT technologies operate in societies independent of social circumstances (Avgerou, 2010). This was (and often still is) the predominant view, both in donor organisations (Nulens and Van Audenhove, 1999) and in government thinking in developing countries like South Africa (Van Audenhove, 2003). In the early 2000s, providing access to telecommunications and to the Internet was considered sufficient to foster development, with little or no attention to the context of deployment or the appropriateness of these technologies (Nulens and Van Audenhove, 1999). The other end of the axis sees successful assimilation ofICT knowledge (ICT innovation) as necessarily embedded in the social context and organisational settings. This means that the use and purpose ofICTs is found in addressing local problems, and local actors and users are able to make sense of the technology and embed it into their daily lives (Avgerou, 2010). On the vertical axis Avgerou (2010:6) distinguishes between progressive and disruptive kinds of transformation. The progressive view of transformation "considers ICT as an enabler of transformations in multiple domains of human activities. ICT-enabled developmental transformations are assumed to be achieved within the existing international and local social order" (6). By contrast, the disruptive view of transformation is "premised on the highly political and controversial nature of development, both as a concept and as an area of policy for international and local action. It reveals conflicts of interest and struggles for power as a necessary part of ICT innovation in developing countries" (ibid). Failure to recognise the "disruptive" possibilities through concentration on what seem self-evidently progressive advantages has led to failure because of strong opposition from existing traditional local power structures (Conradie et al., 2003; Tlabela and Conradie, 2003). In general, since the nineties, research and theory has largely moved from the left upper quadrant (Avgerou, 2010), Innovation by transfer and diffusion/Progressive transformation, to the right lower quadrant, Socially embedded innovation/disruptive transformation. This paradigm shift came about because initiatives like the rollout of Telecentres in South Africa
148 I
Dynamics of Building a Better Society
were hugely unsuccessful and did not lead to the expected take up and use of technology. In consequence, social science and user research have focused attention on the social, cultural and institutional factors hampering diffusion and successful adoption. Living Labs are key institutions arising from the paradigm shift.
Living Labs for Socially Embedded Innovation Living Labs are widely used in innovation systems in Europe and beyond. In general terms, Living Labs are complex research and development institutions that focus on testing and validating ICTs in a real life environment. They involve multiple stakeholders and foster a user-centred, bottom-up approach to promote the adoptability and viability of innovation (Erikson et al., 2005). The definition introduced by Ballon, one of the Flemish team members of this DBBS project, and his fellow researchers sums this up well: "an experimentation environment in which technology is given shape in real life contexts and in which (end) users are considered 'coproducers"' (Ballon et al. 2005:3). The virtue of the Living Lab approach lies not so much in the use of innovative methods, but in its moving research out of the laboratory and combining qualitative and quantitative user data with automated registration of behavioural data in innovative ways (Laboranova, 2007; folstad, 2008). The aim of the approach remains to provide "insights into solution validity and product usefulness, while at the same time, surfacing new and unexpected patterns of use and user groups" (Laboranova, 2007:5). The Living Lab approach is situated in the Socially embedded diffusion/ Disruptive transformation quadrant in Avgerou's scheme (Avgerou, 2010). It works on the premise that research into innovation and technology cannot be divorced from the cultural and institutional environment in which it will be used. The effects of technology have thus to be gauged in specific contexts. In the South African context, the Living Lab approach can make a significant contribution to the successful introduction of technology and innovation (Weiss, 2012) .
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
I 149
Recent ICT Policy in South Africa: From Access to Skills South Africa is one of the leading developing countries when it comes to embracing - at least formally - the concept of the information society (Van Audenhove, 2003). Since 1995 the theme of the information society has surfaced regularly in political discourse and policy documents. However, in the first decade of democracy the actual emphasis was predominantly on access to ICTs by the broader South African community. The first tangible sign of a change in thinking was the publication of the Medium Term Strategic Framework for 2009-2014 (RSA, 2009). This document established the following priorities: (a) creating an e-skilled and capable workforce to support inclusive growth through ICT; (b) creating decent work and sustainable livelihoods through digital innovation and ICTs; (c) improving education through innovative development and use of ICTs; (d) promoting e-health to ensure a long and healthy life for all South Africans; and (e) creating equitable and sustainable rural communities through the use of ICT to support their livelihoods (RSA, 2009). These priorities were refined in the National eSkills Plan of Action (NeSPA) of 2010, which provides a framework for the coordination of existing and new projects in e-skilling South Africa for more equitable prosperity and global competitiveness (Department of Communication and e-Skills Institute, 2010). In August 2012 the South African National Development Plan 2030 (NOP) offered a long-term perspective on development in which it argues that it is possible to eliminate poverty and reduce inequality by 2030 by drawing on the energies of the people, growing an inclusive economy, and building capabilities to solve complex problems. Unfortunately, however, the National Planning Commission (NPC) focuses on ICT access rather than e-skills for citizens as is evident in its emphasis on making "high-speed broadband internet universally available at competitive prices" (RSA, 2012). The second and more refined NeSPA document published in 2012 takes the NOP and Vision 2030 into account. It recognises that any sustainable approach to addressing poverty, including building self-reliance, self-respect and a more cohesive society with a future for generations to
150 I
Dynamics of Building a Better Society
come, cannot be achieved without the social appropriation of ICT for local and personal benefit. This requires ICT-related astuteness - also referred to as "e-social astuteness" - across the full spectrum of South African society (Department of Communication and e-Skills Institute, 2012). Of particular significance is the establishment of thee-Skills Institute (e-SI) through the Department of Communications (DoC) as part of a multi-faceted approach to harnessing ICT to address South Africa's major challenges. The e-SI's mandate is thus firmly aligned with South Africa's commitment to the Medium Term Strategic Framework, the World Summit on the Information Society's Plan of Action, as well as the Millennium Development Goals. It is also consistent with South Africa's endorsement of the strategic intent of NEPAD. While it is clear that specific organisational e-Skills must be developed to promote effective service delivery, the e-SI places a strong emphasis on the need to increase the level of e-skills at the community level. This is an important priority in the multi-faceted national effort to strengthen the human resource base, reduce poverty, create sustainable livelihoods, intensify the fight against crime, build socially cohesive communities, and promote international cooperation. To assist the e-SI in the roll-out of its programmes and to better coordinate and lead all e-skills related activities in particular provinces, the e-SI has established five Provincial e-Skills Co-Labs at partnering universities.
The University of the Western Cape and the e-Skills Initiative Universities have an obligation to transfer knowledge for the improvement of society. The University of the Western Cape (UWC) has a particular reputation for research for socio-economic development. This record and the research already undertaken at UWC lay behind the decision of the Department of Communication (DoC) and the e-SI to select the University as the site for the first of the provincial e-Skills Co-Labs in 2010. Within the Co-Lab framework the Department of Information Systems at UWC has created research groups to focus on e-skills, digital and social inclusion, equitable access for all citizens, social entrepreneurship and the creation of
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
I 151
employment through ICTs. In particular the research focuses on e-skills, social media and mobile devices and the ways they can enable citizens to participate more fully in the information society. It is expected to have significant impact on social and economic development by enabling citizens to use ICTs, particularly mobile technology, to enhance their livelihood, contribute to the economy, and make their voices heard in the South African democracy. It should lead to connecting those who have historically been excluded and disintermediating (removing) obstructive gatekeepers and processes. There are likely to be at least three significant consequences. First, digital production, a means of ensuring that the right messages are delivered through the right medium at the right time to the right users, e.g. information about suitable vacancies to those seeking work. Secondly, crowdsourcing, a means of enabling an online community to contribute to a service or need, anything from dealing with a local community problem to a rich information source like Wikipedia. Thirdly, crowd voicing or crowdvoicing, as a means of capturing group knowledge and opinions within a community and disseminating them to a broader audience, among other things popular support or resistance to be heard, and so leading to expansion of citizenship possibilities and the development of a more responsive democracy.
Phase I (2003-2007): Providing access to JCT In 2003 South Africa still had a long way to go in cultivating a more just and equitable society. It was also the year in which the government announced the start of a major transformation of higher education (VLIR-UOS and UWC, 2003). In this time of national social change, with the sophisticated demands of globalisation accelerated by technological advances, the DBBS programme aimed to help establish UWC as a centre of postgraduate research excellence, generating multi-disciplinary knowledge that would contribute towards building a better South African society. This went along with a need to provide opportunities for student development and support that would improve the quality oflearning and therefore increase the rate of academic success (VLIR-UOS and UWC, 2003, 2004). As an institutional development programme DBBS was designed to build institutional capacity, foster ownership, develop postgraduate education, support UWC in achieving its strategic objectives and to create
152 I
Dynamics ofBuilding a Better Society
research centres of excellence (VLIR-UOS and UWC, 2003; Penny and Africa, 2006). In that context, the main objective of the ICT project was to give all UWC postgraduates adequate access to ICTs and to enable them to use them in critical ways appropriate to their research. During Phase I the project was led by Prof. Derek Keats and Prof. Jan Blommaert, who was also the Flemish Programme Coordinator. The emphasis in this phase was on dedicated facilities for master's and doctoral students so that they did not need to compete with thousands of undergraduate students for limited ICT resources. This objective was to be achieved through the implementation of several fully equipped postgraduate common rooms, in different places on the UWC campus, laser and fibre optic connections between facilities, and network infrastructure (VLIR-UOS and UWC, 2003). Implementation was fast-tracked in the first three years of the project, and the postgraduate ICT facilities at the residences, Economic and Management Sciences (EMS) Building, Main Library, and the Postgraduate Enrolment and Throughput (PET) project were opened in November 2005 (VLIR-UOS and UWC, 2007). More were to follow. The accelerating factors were the huge demand for reliable ICT access among UWC postgraduate students; the opportunity to partner with the UWC 1000 computer project; and the under-expenditure by some of the other projects which meant the ICT project was used to prevent "loss" of VLIR funds in the first two years (VLIR-UOS and UWC, 2005). Finally, the scale of what was achieved would not have been possible without the partnership of the Belgian NGO, Close the Gap, which supplied the refurbished computers used. The mid-term evaluators commended the progress and achievements of the project in 2006: The (library) facility itself, usage levels and the support provided is impressive. In 2003 the availability ratio of computer to student was 1:16. By 2006 this had improved to 1:7 ... The added value of this project is immense in terms of access to facilities and to academic benefits that flow from such. (Penny and Africa, 2006}. Improved postgraduate capacity was clear. And its effectiveness was enhanced by its alignment with the University's strategic endeavours to improve the quantity and quality of postgraduate work. However, as no
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
I 153
specific evaluative research had been undertaken, these academic benefits, while likely, were not demonstrated. In the words of the project leaders a year earlier: At this point we do not know what the impact of the establishment of 6 dedicated postgraduate ICT facilities is ... The DBBS programme will, over the next months, collect qualitative and quantitative data on the use and impact of these facilities. (VLIR-UOS and UWC, 2005). Perhaps because there is no reference to this data in subsequent reports, the project leaders' comment is echoed two years later in an evaluation of ICTrelated projects in different African countries funded by the VLIR-UOS programme (Carpenter et al., 2007). However, the evaluators acknowledge the significant contribution of the project to UWC's "capacity to undertake and expand quality education and research activities, thus indirectly contributing to the developmental goals of both institution and national government" (Carpenter et al., 2007:7). The incontestable impact of Phase I is that it went a long way towards meeting postgraduate needs through the specialist ICT common rooms using the technology of the time and through the large strides taken in creating a Wi-Fi enabled campus open to emerging technology. It also provided some ICT training. These interventions improved access to teaching-and-learning and research resources, and made for a better quality of student experience and academic life. In doing so, they engaged with another UWC strategic priority: the consideration of "quality of student life" as a broad institutional concern. Phase I of this project was characteristic of its time. Like earlier VLIRUOS projects from 1997-1999 in Africa (Zambia, Tanzania, Kenya and Zimbabwe), it had "a heavy focus on setting up networking infrastructure ... and establishing internet connectivity" (Carpenter et al., 2007:4). In this sense it largely fits the upper-left quadrant in Avgerou's (2010) model of Progressive transformation through Innovation by transfer and diffusion. ICT in education thinking was changing, but only later did it become "relatively common across the international higher education sector for managers to think in terms of'information' and 'knowledge: not information technology or ICT, which suggests quite strongly that the (information) resources, processes and products - rather than the technology and systems" need to
154 I
Dynamics of Building a Better Society
be the object of collaboration programmes and projects (Carpenter et al., 2007:63).
Belgian Science Policy Department (BELSPO): ICT for HIVI AIDS Campaigns at UWC Although the DBBS Phase I largely focused on infrastructure, it was recognised early on, albeit by partners not directly involved in Phase I, that ICTs could be used to support social change. After the infrastructure had been put in place in 2005, Close the Gap, together with Tania Vergnani from the HIV/AIDS Programme at UWC, and Leo Van Audenhove from SMITVUB, used funding opportunities in Belgium to add a digital information layer to the infrastructural component and combine this with user research in the interests of matching the digital layer with actual use. The research was predicated on the assumption that as HIV prevention interventions should be context and culture-sensitive and involve interpersonal communication, and as e-media took people out of their traditional world and enabled confidentiality, it would be valuable to understand how best these media might be used. Leo van Audenhove was to become project leader in Phase II. In mid-2006 Dorien Baelden began the research project, which entailed exploratory qualitative (in-depth and focus group interviews) and quantitative (self-administered surveys) research. These explored the computer and internet skills of students at UWC; the social and cultural environments in which students would be using the technologies to access information on HIV; and reasons for and implications of AIDS-fatigue. The results informed the development of two computer-mediated HIV prevention campaigns, eight computer wallpapers on approximately 300 computers in public computer rooms on campus and an online discussion forum (Baelden et al., 2008, 2012). A four-year doctoral research project followed, on the effectiveness of using new technologies to stimulate dialogical learning about the changing sexual universe in online discussion forums (Baelden, 2013). The Living Lab approach was used to examine the use of technology in the real life context of actual use and identify the challenges and opportunities related to the uptake of new services in specific contexts. The results of this research
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
I 15 5
point to the social and cultural realities of the UWC student community as making mobile internet platforms (e.g. chatting programmes such as Mxit and WhatsApp on mobile phones) and social media services more effective than desktop or laptop computers and formal learning programmes. This study resonates with the view that innovation should be socially embedded and can lead to disruptive transformation (Avgerou, 2010).
Phase Ila (2008-2010 ): JCT tools, processes and skills for building a better society Phase II, which started on 1 April 2008, was divided into two subphases. Because of a recognition that ICT had a vital role to play in building a better society, the project lost the shackles of being largely limited to building infrastructure and was now designed to focus on interdisciplinary research to explore how ICT could be of benefit to and drive innovation within the goals of five of the other projects. The plan was to award five bursaries to master's students, one in each research project, to undertake the necessary interdisciplinary research. Each of these students was to be supported by an intern based at the UWC Free Software Innovation Unit (FSIU) which would allow for innovation at the software application level (VLIR and UWC, 2007b). Bursaries would also be awarded to students to undertake research on freedom in the digital age as an important aspect of building a better society. This would include researching legal frameworks that support or impede digital freedom and digital innovation in South Africa; technologies and processes that support and encourage societies to introduce innovations; free and open source software in e-learning; free and open resources for education in the context of building a better society; and strengthening the postgraduate community at UWC through building an online community (VLIR- UOS and UWC, 2007b ). A number of factors resulted in the project's not running to plan, not least that the UWC project leader left the University's employ shortly after the second phase began. This affected the project strongly. For obvious reasons, Phase I had not encouraged staff or student involvement beyond the two project leaders in either the North or the South. Consequently, there was a hiatus in leadership. This meant that the plans for new functionality in software and improved existing functionality, several master's and doctoral
156 I Dynamics ofBuilding a Better Society
students, experienced interns, and research publications were therefore not realised. The only project that took up the offer of ICT support for research centre development was DBBS Project 4, the HIV project, which was given an ICT PhD scholarship.
Phase 2b (2010 to 2013): Reformulation - towards innovation and Living Lab approaches 2010 transformed the project. In that year, as was noted earlier, an e-Skills Co-Lab for the Western Cape was established at UWC as a result of the dose collaboration of the Department of Information Systems and the e-SI in the e-skills initiative of the South African Government. After a visit to SMIT-VUB later that year, Prof. Louis Fourie (Department of Information Systems) and Prof. Leo Van Audenhove (SMIT-VUB) became the new leaders of a transformed ICT project which was closely aligned to NeSPA and the goals of the new e-Skills Co-Lab, and had a particular focus on e-skills as a contribution both to building a better society and to the digital inclusion of disadvantaged communities. In response to the need to build research capacity within the e-Skills Hub, the DBBS Steering Committee decided to offer three scholarships for full-time study towards an MCom (Information Management). One of the scholars, N Katunga, has completed his study; the work of the other two is ongoing. They are studying ICT implementation in the context of the Information Society, with a focus on directed user-oriented research on e-skills. By 2011 the focus had shifted firmly to digital inclusion and the importance of empowering citizens to participate in the digital economy. Joint supervision of post-graduate students and capacity building amongst key academic staff had also led to considerable success in building ICT research and establishing information systems as a niche area at UWC. By 2012 the groundwork had been done for a Living Lab where innovative ICTs can be used to enhance digital inclusion and promote the understanding of the behaviour of end-users through in-depth research.
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
I 157
Conclusion As the global economy becomes increasingly reliant on ICT, the competitiveness oflocal economies, the self-reliance of associated societies and the digital inclusion of the broader South African community require "e-skilled" citizens and workers who have achieved a measureable level of competence and are empowered to participate fully in the Information Society. The JCT project reflects the progression from building infrastructure to building an innovative society that makes this kind of "disruptive" change possible. It was not until the second half of Phase II that the JCT project was able to begin exploring the vital role digital inclusion plays in building a better society, partly at least because the South African context was more receptive. Several project members and three master's students have been able to undertake research in that area. The foundations were also laid for the establishment of a Living Lab at the University of the Western Cape. By focusing on (i) digital inclusion, (ii) the development of the South African society (and the rest of the developing world) through e-skills, and (iii) JCT innovation to promote equitable access and economic growth in South Africa, the JCT project shifted to the lower right quadrant of Avgerou's (2010) model: Socially-embedded innovation/Disruptive transformation. In doing so it has not only confirmed the need for innovation to be context specific, but has sought to ensure that the university community enjoys the benefits of the empowering aspects of ICTs. At an institutional level, the JCT project in the DBBS programme has made a significant contribution to capacity building and the institutional focus on the development of the student as a "whole person': ICTs are recognised as an integral part of innovation space and improving the "quality of life" in key portfolios across the University and thus helping to create a nurturing and dynamic learning-living environment at UWC. The project has also highlighted the need for research in the social sciences as a means of understanding and supporting JCT innovation. The most positive outcome of the project is the establishment of a firm foundation for long-term collaboration between UWC (in particular the IS department) and VUB/SMIT/iMinds and for international networking.
158 I
Dynamics of Building a Better Society
Joint research has moved beyond individual contributions to genuine interaction and collaboration, with outputs at supervision, conference and publication level. There has been a concomitant significant contribution to the academic development and research capacity of the team members, particularly the younger team members and the master's degree students who received DBBS grants. Research collaboration will continue as will staff and student exchange programmes. There are also plans to set up a joint master's in International Communication Policy, as well as a joint PhD programme. The partnership with SMIT-VUB, particularly in relation to the Living Labs methodology, has demonstrated how a more applied research methodology versus a classical research model creates opportunities for universities to be involved in ongoing innovation processes involving industry and communities. The Department of Information Systems now has a firmly established status as a research leader. Along with Bioinformatics and Computer Science it was responsible for UWC's being ranked second in South Africa in the broad category Computer Science in the National Research Foundation's international research impact survey for 2007 -2011.
References Avgerou, C. 2010. Discourses on JCT and development. Information Technologies and International Development. 6(3). p. 1-18. Baelden, D. 2013. Towards collaborative communication approaches for primary HIV prevention? Assessing the opportunities of new technologies for addressing AIDS-fatigue, stimulating dialogical learning, and identifying sexual scripts: A case study at the University of the Western Cape, South Africa. Unpublished PhD, VUB, Brussels. Baelden, D, Van Audenhove, L, and Vergnani, T. 2012. Using new technologies for stimulating interpersonal communication on HIV and AIDS. Telematics and Informatics. 29. p. 166-176. Baelden, D, Vergnani, T, Van Audenhove, L. 2008. ICTs as the new red ribbon. Hot or not. Results of the Belspo research into digital strategies for HIV and AIDS campaigning in a South African University context. Brussels: Belgian Science Policy.
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
I 159
Ballon, P, Pierson, J, and DeLaere, S. 2005. Test and experimentation platforms for broadband innovation: Examining European practice. [Online: http:// userpage.fu-berlin.de/ -jmuellerI its/ conf/porto05/ papers/Ballon_Pierson_ Delaere.pdf] Close the gap. 2006. Tender Document for Belgian Scientific Policy Department. Brussels. Conradie, D P, Morris, C and Jacobs, SJ. 2003. Using information and communication technologies (ICTs) for deep rural development in South Africa. Communicatio. 29(1&2). p. 201-219. Department of Communication and thee-Skills Institute. 2010. National e-skills plan of action (NeSPA) 2010. Pretoria: DOC. Department of Communication and thee-Skills Institute. 2012. National e-skills plan of action (NeSPA) 2012: Continuing e-skilling the nation for equitable prosperity and global competitiveness in the knowledge society. Pretoria: DOC. Carpenter, J, Simaeys, B, and Struijve, 0. 2007. Evaluation of selected JCT-related projects and feasibility study concerning transversal JCT programme. London: Education for Change. Erikson, M; Niitamo, VP, Kulkki, S. 2005. State-of-the-art in utilizing Living Labs approach to user-centric ICT innovation - a European approach. White paper. [Online: http://www.vinnova.se/upload/ dokument/verksamhet/tita/ stateoftheart_livinglabs_eriksson2005.pdf] DiMaggio, P, Hargittai, E, Celeste, C, and Shafer, S. 2004. From unequal access to differentiated use: A literature review and agenda for research on digital inequality. In K Neckerman (ed.). Social Inequality. p. 355-400. [Online: http:/ /www.eszter.com/ research/pubs/ dimaggio-etal-digitalinequality.pdf] folstad, A. 2008. Living labs for innovation and development of information and communication technology: A literature review. The Electronic Journal for Virtual Organizations and Networks 10. p. 99-131. Hargittai, E. 2003. The digital divide and what to do about it. In New Economy Handbook. p. 821-839. [Online: http://www.eszter.com/research/pubs/ hargittai-digitaldivide.pdf] Keats, DW, and Schmidt, JP. 2007. The genesis and emergence of Education 3.0 in higher education and its potential for Africa. First Monday, 12(3). [Online: http://firstmonday.org/issues/issue 12_3/keats/index.html] Laboranova. 2007. Living Labs Methodology, Scenarios and Tools for Data Collection. Laboranova Consortium. Livingstone, S, and Helsper, EJ. 2007. Gradations in digital inclusion: Children, young people and the digital divide. New Media & Society, 9. p. 671-696. The MSG steering group. Achieving the millennium development goals in Africa. [Online: http://www.mdgafrica.org/achieving_mdg.html]
160 I
Dynamics ofBuilding a Better Society
Marien, I, and Van Audenhove, L. 2012. Meetinstrument voor digitale inclusie in steden. Studie voor Digipolis/Stad Gent. National NEPAD: http://www.nepad.org Notley, TM, and Foth, M. 2008. Extending Australia's digital divide policy: An examination of the value of social inclusion and social capital policy frameworks, Australian Social Policy 7. p. 87-10. Nulens, G, Hafkin, N, Van Audenhove, L, and Cammaerts, B (eds). 2001. The digital divide: Towards the information society in Africa. Brussels, VUBPress/ United Nations Economic Commission for Africa. Nulens, G, and Van Audenhove, L. 1999. An Information Society in Africa? An analysis of the information society policy of the World Bank, ITU and ECA. Gazette. 61(6). p. 451-471. Pena-Lopez, I. 2009. Measuring digital development for policy-making: Models, stages, characteristics and causes. Barcelona: ICTlogy. [Online: http://phd. ictlogy.net] Penny, A, and Africa, H. 2006. South Africa: University of the Western Cape: Report of the Midterm Evaluation Commission. Brussels: VLIR-UOS. RSA. 2009. Together doing more and better: Medium term strategic framework: A framework to guide government's programme in the electoral mandate period (2009-2014). Pretoria: Republic of South Africa. [Online: http://www. thepresidency. gov.za/ docs/pcsa/ planning/ mtsf_july09. pdf] RSA. 2012. National Development Plan 2030: Our future - make it work. Pretoria: National Planning Commission. [Online: http://www.npconline.co.za/ MediaLib/Downloads/Downloads/NDP 2030 - Our future - make it work.pdf] Tlabela, KRU, and Conradie, DP. 2003. Contextualising ICT benefits in an educational environment: The case of the DoC-WILs initiative. Communicatio. 29(1&2). p. 235-251. Van Audenhove, L. 2003. Towards a more integrated information society policy in South Africa: An overview of political rhetoric and policy initiatives between 1994 and 2000. Communicatio. 29(1&2). p. 129-147. Van Audenhove, L. 2003. Theories of the information society. Recent contributions and their relevance for the developing world. Communicatio. 29(1&2). p. 48-67. Van Dijk, JAGM. 2006. Digital divide research, achievements and shortcomings. Poetics 34(4-5). p. 221-235. Van Dijk, JAGM. 2005. The deepening divide inequality in the information society. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. VLIR-UOS and UWC. 2003. Annual activity report of the pre-partner programme of the University of the Western Cape (1September2002 to 31July2003). Brussels: VLIR-UOS.
From Digital Divide to Digital Inclusion
I 161
VLIR-UOS and UWC. 2004. Annual report for activity programme 2003 ( 1 August 2003 to 30 June 2004). Brussels: VLIR-UOS. VLIR-UOS and UWC. 2005. Annual report for activity programme 2004/5 Year 2 (1July2004 to 31May2005). Brussels: VLIR-UOS. VLIR- UOS and UWC. 2006. Annual report for activity programme 200516 Year 3 {l June 2005 to 31 March 2006). Brussels: VLIR-UOS. VLIR-UOS and UWC. 2007a. Annual report for activity programme 200617 Year 4 (1April2006 to 31 March 2007). Brussels: VLIR-UOS. VLIR-UOS and UWC. 2007b. UOS partner programme for UOS partnerships entering Phase II ofUOS cooperation. Weiss, N. 2012. Living Labs in developing countries. A case study on South Africa - In what way the Living Lab concept is and should be engaged in South Africa and how the methodology can be transferred to different contexts. Master's thesis, VUB. Witte, J, and Mannon, S. 2010. The Internet and social inequalities. Contemporary Sociological Perspectives. New York: Routledge.
162 I
Dynamics of Building a Better Society
